12 Jun
2011
12 Jun
'11
6:49 p.m.
Hi Paul-
I'm not sure if what you're saying matters, since the buffer settings, etc.
were the same between jack and alsa settings in the PianoTeq setup
dialogs....unless I'm missing something, the /proc directory info you are
asking me to compare with jackd settings verify that they were the same.
Best,
AKJ
P.S. Did you get my email ever about jackctl.py? Not the one in the jack
source tree, but my CL utility of the same name that I wrote?
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>wrote;wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Aaron Krister
Johnson
<aaron(a)akjmusic.com> wrote:
--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org
Hi all--
I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced this:
I'm considering purchasing PianoTeq, but I wanted to try the demo. It
seems
to work better with just the alsa driver than it
does with jack, a
reversal
of the usual situation.
I tested this several times by playing fast glissandi on the default
piano
preset. Each time, my little EEE-PC netbook under
jack choked with xruns
and
a brief silence while PianoTeq 'reset'
itself, but Alsa alone chugged
away
with no xruns unless there was an extreme amount
of load....
I'm wondering if anyone can comment on this. It seems odd, especially
since
the jack developers claim jack adds no latency by
itself to the picture
in
any situation---so, do we have a situation where
the code is better
written
for the alsa driver than for jackd? It seems we
do, in this case....
you should check the latency that it is using with ALSA. Assuming you
use the first audio device on the first sound card:
cat /proc/asound/card0/pcm0p/sub0/hw_params
and then compare that with your JACK settings.
--p